State's gay marriage ban goes to court

Starting Tuesday, in a courtroom in Lansing, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman is presiding over DeBoer v. Snyder; a case pitting two Hazel Park nurses, who argue that gay marriage and adoption bans violate their right to get married and adopt each other’s children, against Michigan State Attorney General Bill Schuette and Michigan’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

To be clear, there is no ban on gay adoptions, as we have adopted five beautiful children, the issue is being able to adopt together. In that situation, again, there is no black and white discrimination, as no unmarried couple can adopt a child together. The Catch-22 remains with the ban on same sex couples being able to wed.

I do not envy the position Judge Friedman must be in as his Court hears the emotionally charged issue as both sides fuel the fire. According to a quote in The Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014302240015), Kristin Heyse ,the Attorney representing state Attorney General Bill Schuette’s office, indicated that the State’s position “is not an attack” on the gay and lesbian community, adding that the plaintiffs are “doing a wonderful job raising their children.” But, she said, “there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage or adoption.”

Unless I am missing something, I did not catch a constitutionally guaranteed ‘right’ for anyone, gay or straight, to marry or adopt, these benefits were extended based on societally acceptable norms and then supported by laws that perpetuated the practice. That said, however, by structuring the laws the way that they have, I am of the opinion that there is clear discrimination against a faction of society that are barred from enjoying protections and benefits offered to others based solely on who they happen to love.

Advertisement

In no small coincidence, I muse of the juxtaposition and irony as this story sits side by side next to the articles of the Arizona Governor as she is struggling with the decision as to whether or not to sign a law that will allow Arizonans to use religious beliefs as justification to refuse service to gays and lesbians. The attempt to validate marginalization and discrimination of an entire segment of the population continues to mystify.

In full disclosure, I have a vested interest in the outcome of this case. Rodney and I have six kids; we have already had to make the difficult and hurtful choices as to which of us will adopt which child. We have already had to explain to our children why they don’t have the same last name as each other despite living as a nuclear family. We have come to terms that we will need to carry separate BC/BS contracts to protect our children; that we need to carry guardianship papers for the children to ensure that we cannot be blocked from providing care for our children in unfamiliar medical settings. We have to visit our beloved attorney to file and sign endless paperwork to protect our children, home, investments, and last wishes in the event of illness or our untimely demise. While we dutifully perform these tasks not necessary on the part of our straight counterparts, we don’t feel we should have to. This case is not asking for special ‘rights’ or privileges, simply that every tax paying citizens should have the equal protections and benefits that we see our friends and neighbors have to protect their family.

The pundits are already predicting that the case will become a battle of the ‘experts’ as both sides prepare to parade before the Court a cadre of sociologists, scientists, and scholarly studies each of which trying to prove to the beleaguer Judge that straight parents or gay parents are inherently better or worse that the other in their quest to raise happy, healthy, and productive members of society.

While all of the testimony of experts may be the focus, we are in a position to interact with many families and children of varying familial structures; children of single parents, traditional couples, same sex couples, and I can tell you, from our experience, they all have the success stories and failures built into them equally.

In my mind’s eye, I envision some crafty attorney trying to help make the case by calling the children of any parent to the stand. I imagine them wincing as the wide eyed boy attests to the story of their two daddies standing in the driveway screaming at each other over the van getting stuck in the snow drift of an icy driveway. The precious little girl gleefully retelling the tale of mommy and daddy working to get the marble out of a siblings nose as they each argue over who was supposed to be watching the child. I imagine the grimace on the face of a lawyer as their witness wears a grin as she tells the story of how fun it was to have popcorn and M&M’s for dinner because mom is all alone and had worked all day. Once they got home from Meijer and put away the groceries; movie night in jammies with a junk food dinner sounded like the best option.

Every family is filled with stories like this. Straight or Gay; married, single, or committed; every person that stands up and says “I love this child and want to make a life for her/him” is making a lifetime commitment; taking a leap of faith that they are doing the best they can and that it will result in an individual that will make them proud.

Judge Friedman, on behalf of many reasoned and well-intended families like ours in the State of Michigan, all of us with the best interest of families and children in their heart, I wish you well on this endeavor and hope that you see clear to come down on the right side of history.